It's likely that the public will get a too-rare glimpse into how police departments oversee their officers because of a request by fired South Burlington police Cpl. Jack O'Connor for a hearing on his dismissal. This is the kind of public review police departments should receive more often.

The exposure comes under the threat of litigation by an individual who has accused the former officer of violating her civil rights. It should not take this extreme response to ask our police departments and city halls to be held accountable for their actions.

This effort to force public revelation of reasons for O'Connor's dismissal is being made in spite of the assurance of Police Chief Trevor Whipple that, "We are an accountability department." If, that were true, there would be no need for the hearing.

The truth is that accountability is hardly the case for many of the police departments in Vermont. Closed-mouth and shrouded in secrecy are more apt descriptions.

One of the foundations of public confidence in our law-enforcement agencies is the belief that police officers, as others on the public payroll, should be held accountable for their conduct. Among public servants, the police hold immense power, including the authority to detain, arrest and jail individuals. Yet in Vermont, the public has few avenues into the inner workings of police departments, especially when it comes to whether and how officers are disciplined.

When virtually no information is made available to the general public about how citizen complaints and officer discipline are handled by a department, confidence in law enforcement is undermined. The proof of accountability necessary to maintain credibility should trump many concerns about privacy for employees who have the capacity to do great good as well as great harm.

The people of South Burlington might finally see how well city officials have managed, or as could be the case, mismanaged, public complaints against O'Connor, but only because he has chosen to make his dismissal a cause. The particulars of the case have been obscured because the city has lifted the shield of "personnel" to keep the details hidden. South Burlington did release O'Connor's dismissal letter, but, as the Free Press reported, "it cast no light on what policy O'Connor had violated."

(Page 2 of 2)

South Burlington City Hall might be actively keeping a close eye on police conduct. Chief Whipple says City Manager Sandy Miller is "informed and aware of internal investigations." Unfortunately, there is no way residents would know, as such matters as investigation into complaints and disciplinary action take place behind closed doors.

The public is asked to believe on face value that if the police say so, then it must be true.

Do not presume that judges will be that deferential. Two judges have criticized the way O'Connor has conducted his investigations, and by extension, the management of the South Burlington police force. One of those judges decided his searches were illegal and described O'Connor's investigatory behavior as "threatening and coercive."

A judge may criticize a police officer freely in open court, but the reasons a city disciplines the officer is held as a state secret?

It is time for citizens to demand that city halls and police departments lift the veil of secrecy and air their actions in regard to petitions of redress against government. There is a good reason for this aside from the situation involving Jack O'Connor.

Vermont has a police academy that has been fraught with questionable behavior, including accusations of a staff trainer possessing child pornography who subsequently took his own life and another trainer having improper contact with recruits. A state trooper has acknowledged an offer to fix a ticket for then-gubernatorial candidate Peter Shumlin, who declined the offer. Police officers have been caught driving at high rates of speed outside of duty, and the public has been denied most information on the incident.

Oversight of police departments must be more open to enable voters to make their own decisions about the kinds of complaints made and specifically how officialdom responds. The public must have ready access to how problems are resolved, rather than having to depend on access granted at the discretion of an officer under duress.

This is known as accountability. If you ignore this reality of governance, then you have chosen the wrong career.